ABSTRACT
Introduction Age and lymph node ratio have been attributed as independent predictors for survival and recurrence in carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP). Objective The purpose of this study was to analyze the prognostic value of p16 overexpression for CUP in the absence of true primary (TP). Methods The study involved 43 patients who underwent therapeutic lymph node dissection (LND) from 2000 to 2015 after all the diagnostic work up for CUP. Immunohistochemistry for p16 overexpression was performed. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to analyze the prognostic impact on 5-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Results The male-to-female ratio was 5.1:1, with a median age of 62 years. The clinicopathological data, except for p16 overexpression, did not differ significantly in terms of 5-year OS and RFS. The Cox regression analysis proposed p16 positivity to be an independent prognosticator of regional recurrence-free survival (RRFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 6.180, p = 0.21). The median time to recurrence and death were 10 and 25 months, respectively. Conclusion Cervical metastasis with p16 overexpression is a significant prognostic factor of improved RFS after surgery in CUP. The prognostic significance of lymph node p16 positivity should be further studied.
ABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction Age and lymph node ratio have been attributed as independent predictors for survival and recurrence in carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP). Objective The purpose of this study was to analyze the prognostic value of p16 overexpression for CUP in the absence of true primary (TP). Methods The study involved 43 patients who underwent therapeutic lymph node dissection (LND) from 2000 to 2015 after all the diagnostic work up for CUP. Immunohistochemistry for p16 overexpression was performed. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to analyze the prognostic impact on 5-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Results The male-to-female ratio was 5.1:1, with a median age of 62 years. The clinicopathological data, except for p16 overexpression, did not differ significantly in terms of 5-year OS and RFS. The Cox regression analysis proposed p16 positivity to be an independent prognosticator of regional recurrence-free survival (RRFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 6.180, p = 0.21). The median time to recurrence and death were 10 and 25 months, respectively. Conclusion Cervical metastasis with p16 overexpression is a significant prognostic factor of improved RFS after surgery in CUP. The prognostic significance of lymph node p16 positivity should be further studied.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether elective tracheostomy is justified after tumor resection and bilateral neck dissection (ND) and whether application of tracheostomy scoring systems is reliable for planning of postoperative airway management. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed airway management in 160 patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Additionally, we applied and analyzed the 1) Cameron, 2) TRACHY, and 3) CASST tracheostomy scoring systems on the tracheostomy recommendations. RESULTS: Elective tracheostomies were performed in 51.3% of our patients, particularly in T3 to T4 tumors, cases with free flap reconstruction, and concurrent procedures. Among patients undergoing concurrent procedures, those who received tracheostomy showed significantly longer inpatient stays (27.8 ± 30.0 days vs. 13.3 ± 6.6 days; P < 0.001). Tracheostomy recommendation coincides with the performance of bilateral ND in 28.6% (CASST), 60.0% (Cameron), and 75.0% (TRACHY) of the cases, respectively. By applying corresponding criteria, tracheostomy would be recommended in 2.5% (CASST), 76.9% (Cameron), and 84.4% (TRACHY) of our cases. Bleeding episodes were the most common complication occurring in 10 patients (6.3%), but tracheostomy scores did not significantly differ between bleeders and nonbleeders. CONCLUSION: Bilateral ND on its own is not a reliable predictor for elective tracheostomy. Furthermore, given the significant heterogeneity of currently available scoring systems, they prove inadequate for decision making and predictive modeling of tracheostomy placement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 130:E580-E586, 2020.